We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Samizdata.net wheels out another of our ‘mercenary independent scholars’ in the Interblog Popper Wars. Alan Forrester!
Karl Popper‘s epistemology is about how to solve problems and find better theories, and as such observations do not have the grossly overrated importance given to them by inductivism. The whole notion of probability in this context is irrelevant, since a theory is either true or false and no number of confirming instances allow us to distinguish between them. On Thursday, Will Wilkinson wrote:
It is daunting indeed to debate a man named “Rafe Champion”, a name that evokes race car-driving secret agents, or dangerous, seething, family-wrecking hunks from a “daytime drama”.
Damn straight he is. He does all that, eats broken glass for breakfast and, most excitingly of all – he’s a critical rationalist!
First, I am keen to know what knowledge is, if not a kind of belief. If I know that water is H2O (a scientific proposition), don’t I also believe it?
Not in the sense you mean, i.e.- the sense that it is definitely or probably correct. We tentatively accept that a theory is better than its rival on the basis of things such as whether they provide good explanations and whether the other theories have been refuted by observations.
Next, I find that I’m able to decisively justify all sorts of beliefs on the basis of experience. For instance, that there is a mug on my desk. I see the mug on my desk, and I thereby know that it is there. Science is rather more complex than looking at mugs on desks, but one surely can derive certain beliefs from the evidence of the senses. It’s not clear to me what bind Popper is getting us out of.
So it’s totally impossible that you are hallucinating the mug? Also, why are you so obsessed about whether there is a mug on your desk or not? It’s not a very interesting question. I would sooner debate about something substantial like a meaty scientific or philosophical problem, which brings us back to the main point. Leaving quibbles like that aside, there are actually two quite different issues here. One is whether one can derive theories from observations, the other is if not what role do observations play?
It is impossible to derive theories for observations. To take but one counterexample, up until the late 19th century every observation was compatible with Newton’s theory of gravity. All these observations are also compatible with Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity. Two quite different theories were compatible with the same set of observations, therefore one cannot derive theories from observations. Next we have to ask why you made those particular observations, rather than observations of, say, the exact weight of all the dust under your bed. Before the theories come along that differ in their predictions about the motion of the planets or whatever, there is no particular reason to watch their motion so theories can hardly be derived from observations. The problem is much worse than this though. Even if one could confirm, say, an equation of motion on the basis of observations, one could not derive the explanation provided by the theory from observations. For example, one could explain the motion of the planets by saying that they are pushed round the Sun by invisible pixies that just happen to obey Einstein’s equations. This explanation is rubbish on a truly epic scale compared to the explanation in terms of curved spacetime, but as the observations do not allow us to distinguish between them, the pixie theory of planetary motion must be criticised on other grounds. The role of observations is to distinguish between rival theories. Each prediction of a theory is either true or false, and each theory is either true or false, no number of confirming instances can change that, and hence they cannot prove it to be true, but if we see a refuting instance, then the theory is false.
Last, I said nothing about limiting science to collecting confirming instances. All I was saying is that Popper is wrong that positive instances don’t raise the probability of a hypothesis. According to Popper and Champion, the probability of Newton’s theory being true, even after all its success, was the same as the probability of cats giving birth to elephants.
Newton’s theory was false, so as it turns out the probability was indeed the same :-). However, all this talk of probability ignores the real issue of why, before it was refuted, it was reasonable to hold Newton’s theory, but not the theory that cats give birth to elephants, or why it is reasonable to prefer General Relativity or whatever to such a theory now. It is a good idea to prefer General Relativity to its rival because its rivals are poorer at solving problems.
It is reasonable to prefer the theory that elephants give birth to elephants rather than cats because the former solves problems and the latter does not, indeed it raises new ones. To be a bit more explicit, the theory of evolution, which is better than its rivals (although I don’t think there are any really serious rivals at the moment), gives us reason to think that elephants give birth to more elephants as a way of spreading elephant genes. The theory that cats give birth to elephants not only fails to solve any problems, it ruins theories that do solve problems. It makes absolutely no sense from an evolutionary perspective why would cat genes want to propagate elephants genes? Where did the cat get the elephant genes in the first place? Furthermore, no matter how you try to solve these problems, you just raise more and worse problems, so we can reject the theory that cats give birth to elephants out of hand. To summarize, good theories solve problems better than their rivals, but raise problems themselves, which will be solved by their successors and so we don’t consider that observations and so on confirm a theory.
Alan Forrester
In response to Will Willkinson on the The Fly Bottle taking our esteemed generalissimo Perry de Havilland to task for supporting the conjectural objective epistemology of Karl Popper, the Samizdata Team decided that we should wheel up the big guns for our response. Rafe Champion a noted Australian independent scholar of Popper replies to Will.
Will Wilkinson has invoked a number of weary and worn out arguments against Popper’s theory of inquiry and his theory of knowledge. First of all it is helpful to understand that Popper is concerned with understanding the way the world works, with learning by imaginative problem solving and making the best use of our critical faculties. It is also helpful to understand how Popper has emancipated us from some dead ends in philosophy, and not just the philosophy of science. Many of these dead ends arise from the theory that scientific knowledge is a form of belief, to wit, justified true belief. The source of justification in the empiricist tradition is supposed to be the evidence of our senses. In the Continental rationalist tradition the source of justification is the intuition of clear and distinct ideas. In each case the same fatal flaw arises: there is no way to decisively (certainly) justify the beliefs that are supposed to be true.
Popper has provided an alternative to the failed theories of justified true belief. The alternative is a theory of conjectural objective knowledge. This does not mean giving up on truth, or the search for it. Truth is a regulative standard for statements. A true statement corresponds to the facts. In our search for the truth we form critical preferences for the theory (or the social policy) which best solves its problems and stands up to all kinds of tests (the test of internal consistency, consistency with other well tested theories, and experimental or observational tests). Our preferences can change in a rational and controlled manner in the light of new evidence or new arguments. Our knowledge grows through our creative response to problems, including the problems that are created by effective criticism.
The Popperian scientists is like a free market entrepreneur, seeking opportunities (unsolved problems) in the marketplace. The scientist forms a conjectural solution to the problem (invests or offers a product in the marketplace) and it is then subjected to critical appraisal, including experimental tests (the product is tested by the market). All this goes on in the flux of time and is subject to radical uncertainty due to the inherently open-ended nature of theoretical knowledge (and the dynamic marketplace).
All of this is simple common sense until David Stove and the proponents of justified true beliefs confuse the picture.
Will wrote:
“Popper argues that one can only disconfirm a theory–prove that it is false”.
In logic, that is the simple truth. A general or universal theory, stated in the form “All swans are white” is falsified by a single (true) report of a black swan.
“But then what do you say of a theory that has been subjected to huge numbers of potentially falsifying tests, but has passed with flying colors? Isn’t not being falsified by many tests a lot like being confirmed?”
That was the case with Newton’s theory which passed many tests and explained so many things that many people thought that the final truth had been found. But it was not so, even before Einstein offered a viable alternative there were known to be problems with Newton’s theory. If you want to limit confirmation to repeatable observations, like sunrises and falling apples, then that is scientifically trivial and uninteresting because science is concerned with general explanatory theories, (which apply to both apples and sunrises).
“Pace Popper, induction works just fine, and it works pretty much the way people intuitively think it does (i.e., The more horses you encounter, the surer your knowledge about horses in general.)”
Not really. To learn about horses you need to approach them in a receptive, inquisitive or problem-solving way. If you merely encounter them “in passing” you may learn nothing more than to get out of their way. Learning is an active process of sifting and evaluating ideas and evidence, that is why so many people can go through school and higher education and learn next to nothing (exept about things that they really find interesting, which may be horses and not their academic studies). When you understand where Popper is coming from, David Stove is just a bore, despite his wit and his verbal pyrotechnics. Stove and his fellow inductivists apparently think there is some way to attach a numerical probability to general theories, but it has not yet been done despite being an academic industry for about a hundred years. This renders their position absurd by their own standards.
Rafe Champion
Andrew Dodge is not well pleased by some people’s views of ‘Lord of the Rings’
I feel I must wade into the sordid debate about Tolkien and Lord of the Rings. I am afraid there are some prevailing factors which will mean that the great man will never get the kudos due to him by fellow writers and the critics. The man has absolute no writer “cred”. He was not an ardent left, a pederast, pedophile, drug addict, raging queer, womaniser, sado-masochist or suicide prone loon. The man was an Oxford don who liked nothing more than smoking his pipe with a glass of something while he and others (C.S. Lewis) read their latest work. The man enjoyed the company of his fellow writers, his own creations and books instead of little boys, hookers or criminals. How can this man have sold so many books? His critics can only muster one insult to the good man’s name: he wrote for children. His books contained no rape, mass murder, transvestites or drug addicts. His books were quite simply a story of a battle between good and evil in a fantasy world. (Of course he is loathed by the snooty writer/critic for spawning the fantasy genre as well. In fact this may be his greatest crime against the written word.)
Of course the poor man gets it from those who should be on his side for the same reason as above. The happy-clappy’s who should like him for his “Christian” themes (and some do), instead loath him for his fantasy books. His books contain magic therefore must be evil. Not only that but they blame Tolkien for the genre, they blame him for Dungeons & Dragons and all other Role Play Games, computer games other than chess, heavy metal music, Columbine (& all other acts of teenage violence) and all other activities enjoyed by the young (mostly males). I am not sure if they have managed to blame Tolkien for sex yet, but that is only a matter of time.
Ironically Harry Potter maybe saving Tolkien from the happy-clappy wrath. I did a quick search on Google and found several sites praising the Lord of the Rings for its Christian elements. These sites were attacking Harry Potter as actually evil and satanic, and letting Tolkien off. The articles posted were recent, since the Harry Potter movie was released and at the time of LOTR.
Below I have included the letter I wrote to the Telegraph in response to an act of butchery in their opinion page. The author managed to include the arguments against Tolkien from both the left and the right.
_____________________
Sir,
I was appalled at the overwhelmingly inaccurate portrayal of Tolkien aficionados in the article (9th Dec Telegraph Opinion page). The piece was written with all the intelligence and accuracy of a tabloid article. It was boorish and nasty, coming across as a knuckle-dragging rugby player’s description of anyone who is at all bookish. In addition to maligning those of us who read and admire Tolkien the article goes on to insult AD&D and other role play game players, computer game players and heavy metal/hard rock music fans. As part of these insults there is a not so subtle jab at the young male Tolkien fan’s sexual preferences then bemoaning the lack of promiscuity, illegal drug use and anti-social behaviour in their lives.
If the article had stuck to the valid point it was making about the author’s designs for his book, it would have been much more effective.
Surely of all the possible outlets, the Telegraph is that last place you would expect to find this kind of sensationalist stereotype-filled diatribe.
Andrew Ian Dodge
Westminster
David Deutsch points out the bizarre logical knots into which the so called ‘Arab Street’ is tying itself
There is an interesting BBC article about the latest tape of Bin Laden discussing the September 11 attacks
The BBC’s Middle East correspondent, Frank Gardner, says that at street level in the Arab world, many believe the tape is a fake, a PR gimmick dreamed up by the US administration.
To believe Bin Laden innocent despite the overwhelming evidence of his guilt, one must have an overwhelming psychological incentive.
This incentive comes from a deep admiration for, and identification with, Bin Laden.
This admiration and identification are derived from the fact that Bin Laden has succeeded in hurting Americans, which is the epitome of what people in that category compulsively yearn for.
In other words, it stems from those people’s belief that Bin Laden is responsible for the September 11 attacks.
They believe he isn’t responsible for the attacks because they believe he is.
I therefore guess that Frank Gardner’s men-in-the-street who believe, after seeing the videotape evidence, that Bin Laden had nothing to do with the September 11 attacks, are to very high accuracy the same ones who celebrated the attacks themselves.
David Deutsch
Christian Michel sees Israel’s problems as rooted not in geography but in what it is.
It has been said that Israel is ‘a state in the wrong place’.
But Israel’s problem is not that it is a state in the wrong place (where else should it be?), it is that it is a State. Because it was artificially established from the outside, its sovereignty is questioned inside (as is the case by minorities of so many states set up by their colonial powers, notably in Africa and the ex-Soviet Union).
But Israel’s problems only anticipate those to be faced sooner or later by Belgium, Switzerland, Italy, Spain, to name a few in Europe. A modern State, all the more so if it claims to be democratic, is viable only when it rules a totally homogenous, uniform, undifferentiated population. Yet, whether we like it or not, populations will get more and more differentiated, by fortune, by education, by new ethnic awareness, by culture. States will either have to level down differences through brutal ethnic cleansing and economic intervention, with the risk of stifling innovation and prosperity, let alone human rights; or withdraw.
In my childhood liberal Christian environment, Jews were regarded as the “chosen people”, our “elders in the faith”. When anarchist issues became of interest, Jews appeared to me as the obvious model of a God-given historically proven example that human beings’ social identity is not attached to a land, it is not dependent on some bureaucracy conferring citizenships. We can live collectively without these artificial constructs. Jews managed to do it despite persecutions for 2000 years.
This constant and admirable refusal to be assimilated and reduced to the single dimension of a subject attached to a land and a state is a root of anti-semitism. It is not the ‘deicidal people’ that Hitler hated, but the ‘wandering’ one. Hitler’s fight, his ‘Kampf’, was not so much against Jews as such, as against cosmopolitanism. The Communist was an enemy (the name USSR with no reference to a land was a statement of the internationalist nature of communism at the time), the Capitalist was another one, so were the landless Gypsies and Jews. It is no coincidence, of course, that Jews were so heavily represented in both capitalist and communist elites.
An extraordinary paradox of our time, then, is that Israel is established just when the world is discovering the absurdity of social organizations based on the junction of a territory, a people and a government (ein Reich, ein Volk, ein Führer). Inherited from the French Revolution, the dogma that all three had to go together led to the Versailles Treaty and its disastrous consequences. It is still causing today ethnic cleansing through forced assimilation, deportation or elimination.
The creation of a State of Israel after the Holocaust might have seemed a good idea to some. Jews wanted a country of their own where they would be safe and not dependent on the goodwill of alien governments. It turns out that Jews are safe everywhere except in Israel, and Israel survives only thanks to the goodwill of a few alien governments.
Sacred texts, whether the Bible or the Koran, are metaphors. The universe was not created in 6 days and the Promised Land is not 20,000 sq. km between Eilat and the Golan. Land belongs legitimately to individuals only, not States, and the only Promise to look for is that it will remain your property to enjoy until you give it away, sell it or die. It matters little then that neighbours are Palestinian and Jews, provided they respect property rights. And provided they don’t need to get control of a government, either because no government exists, or it is powerless anyway to redistribute their wealth, subsidize their business, educate their children, run their police, ban what they will eat or drink, dictate how they should dress and when they should fast and close their shops… compare Palestine before the State of Israel and today.
That is the lesson Jews had been teaching us throughout History, how to remain yourself among others. They have discharged themselves of this mission with terrible consequences. Maybe that torch has passed on to Libertarians.
Christian Michel also writes on liberalia.com, one of Europe’s leading libertarian websites. All texts available in English and French.
There is an interesting article by Matthew Edgar on Politics.com called The Solution to Post-Taliban Afghanistan: No Government. Whilst I do not actually agree with all its contentions, the central thrust of the article is insightful and realistic. It is a very different approach from the ‘received wisdom’ that various pundits and government talking head have been declaiming as the preferred ‘solution’ to Afghanistan’s woes (mumble, mumble, broad-based government, mumble, mumble, democracy…).
Now I know we said this before but this really is the last Samizdata article on the subject for a while… unless of course someone sends us an article which is pure genius and covers new ground. Patrick Phillips gets the last word
I thought I might offer my two-cents worth in the controversy concerning our armed forces in Afghanistan. The original post by Mr. de Havilland concerning the utility of the U.S. Marine Corps and Navy aircraft carriers was true as far as it went. But it also read like someone from the Navy frantically trying to justify the Navy/Marine Corps budget and force-structure. There’s nothing really wrong with that (and the USN/USMC certainly requires no justification to me), but the analysis provided was highly selective.
When it became obvious that Afghanistan needed to be targeted for the Taliban’s role in supporting the terrorists, we had precisely three things in our military arsenal that could be quickly mobilized to “reach out and touch” that distant, land-locked country. They were Special Forces (predominately Army), USAF heavy bombers, and the Navy’s carrier aircraft and cruise missiles.
We promptly used the available resources — and to impressively good effect. After only a few weeks of preparation time, the Special Forces were in-country conducting reconnaissance and contacting the locals, the USN had grabbed control of the air and performed cruise missile strikes, and the heavy bombers began working their own special magic on the local landscape. The results have been uniformly (pun intended) unpleasant for the Taliban.
As the conflict in Afghanistan moves into its (hopefully) last stages, the USMC is serving its role of providing an extremely competent, highly transportable combined-arms force that will provide more direct muscle than Special Forces can provide. So Marines have seized control of an airstrip that was previously raided/scouted by Army Rangers.
What point am I trying to make here?
Teamwork. We needed all of the capabilities discussed here.
At various times, every force I’ve mentioned above have been declared superfluous by various “experts”.
Heavy Bombers? Don’t need them — their job can be done with cruise missiles and by smaller fighter-bomber aircraft.
Special Forces and Rangers? They dangerously strip too much high quality manpower out of the Army’s regular units.
Cruise missiles? Expensive, ineffective, destabilizing in terms of arms control.
Marines and aircraft carriers? Well, that’s already been discussed.
So while I appreciate the point that the Mr. de Havilland was making, I do think it needed to be expanded upon.
Patrick Phillips
I agree with .40 S&W is an excellent round, with the caveat that it can be quite punishing to shoot over a long period, and I would contend that you need to shoot your self-defence weapon a lot before you can rely on it. 45 ACP has, like my favourite calibre (455 Webley, I own a Webley Mk VI and a Smith 2nd Model Hand Ejector) has the advantage that it can deliver an authoritative hit with a relatively low velocity load; even a light target load from a Colt can end an argument very effectively and more certainly than a lighter high velocity round. To quote (I think) Colonel Cooper:
There are many ways of making a bullet lose velocity; I know very few of making it lose weight.
I think magazine capacity is a chimaera in self-defense pistols; modern high capacity weapons have been driven either by a military/police agenda or competition requirements; there are going to be very few few self-defence situations in which you need more than five or six rounds. What is, I believe required is a pistol portable enough to be carried all the time, rather than an ersatz SMG.
Natalie and I own (In Belgium, these days I’m afraid,) a little Charter Arms Undercover, and a good friend owns its big brother the bulldog. On the day I bought it for Natalie I carried it for several hours in my trousers pocket before she even realised I had it. Only 5 rounds of 38 special, but practice and intelligent choice of ammo made it very credible self defence weapon, had we ever been in a place it were legal to carry one. Of course, If I were expecting trouble I’d make a different choice, but even with the little Charter I’d be prepared for it…
Mike Solent
Samizdata will give Ed Collins the final word in the on-going knife fight pertaining to the roles of the US Army and USMC. Seconds away, round four!
Sirs,
I regret disputing with a former Marine, as I was once part of that illustrious organization, but the statements of Lt Col. Pastel are simply Marine Corps propaganda. I was a weapons platoon sergeant with the 82nd Airborne, an Army unit, in one of the battalions that invaded that island.
As I seem to recall, there was a Seal team that did indeed drown, by being put out too far offshore. This was about five men, not the fifty cited by Col. Pastel. Nor were there seven thousand Rangers, as he states. Two Ranger battalions made first contact with the Cubans by making a low-altitude junp onto the airfield at Pt. Salinas. One of them, I think 1st Bn, brought only their officers and NCO’s, leaving the ‘kids’ at home in Ft. Lewis, in the same spirit as Leonidas sending home his young from Thermopolaye. At most, there were a few hundred Rangers on the island at any time.
The Army eventually put five thousand people on the island, but these were brought in after combat operations were concluded and consisted of MP’s, medical personnel, etc.
The Marine battalion (6th MEU, I think) did nothing more than land at Pearl and drive around a bit. The center of action was always the air strip and the medical school at the south end of the island, in which the Marines took no part.
All due respect to the Marine Corps and Col. Pastel, but the Marines had little effect on Grenada.
Yours truly,
Ed Collins
A few last words from George Harrison…this seemed appropriate
Song: Taxman
Duration: 2.37
Track No.: 1
Composer: Harrison
Vocals: George Harrison
Year: 1966
My respects to Mr. Bainter, but he is overlooking the fact that air superiority includes knocking out air defense sites. This is not something bombers excel at: the shorter range fighters and attack planes are used for SEAD (suppression enemy air defense) missions.
It usually takes a combination of assets to win. For some operations, such as Grenada, all the necessary assets were contained within the Marines, but the other services insisted on playing too. So, we had 50 SEALS drown in rough seas and 7,000 Rangers shooting at each other across their horseshoe-shaped front lines while a Marine battalion took the island.
In Afganistan, as in Kuwait/Iraq, it is taking combined assets from all the services to manage the war effort effectively. I think that Mr. de Havilland’s point was that if the Navy/Marine Corps mix had been different, the Navy/Marine Corps team probably wouldn’t have been able to participate.
And it is seldom obvious to outsiders, but someone is always trying to reduce or do away with the Marine Corps. This has been true ever since WW II.
Chris Pastel
LTCOL USMCR (RET)
J. Baxter writes:
I am a conservative moving quickly into the libertarian camp. Libertarians are the last bastion of defense for the Constitution, I do believe, and watching the hysterical, knee-jerk reactions of both government and the social movers and shakers these last weeks since 11 September is alarming. The reactions of government beyond the military mode should leave little doubt in the rational mind that we long ago crossed over into socialism and so far away from the Constitution and the First Amendment, that little argument to the contrary remains.
That being said, the First Amendment as written…
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
…should not be merely the whip by which the “religious right” are the ones flogged, but also in order, every time: Congress for screwing around with the free exercise of religion, or the freedom of speech (add and read that “internet”), and of the press (as they parrot the governmental line they should be severely chastised); the peaceable assembly of citizens who are just damn sick and tired of not being counted anymore unless redistricting or a new tax hike is in the works; and yet again the government for using every means possible to shut down the response of the citizenry, if even by demagoguery and the use of the press to further governmental schemes.
There exists an all out assault on the First Amendment, and even those who would defend it to the death deal with the assault piecemeal, rather than exposing the whole battle plan of whatever opposition. The first two amendments, and the 10th, are the targets, and as long as most Americans can live with their take-home pay and ignore the deductions, talk their faith only at church and not criticize any governmental official at any level (try it at the most local level and see the reaction), most Americans are as happy as clams.
Of course the American ire was aroused on 11 September. Home invasion causes such a reaction. But now I watch us being lulled back to sleep by the same governmental agencies responsible for this whole flipping mess anyway.
The blame is being shifted; every American is now a suspect (try getting on a plane these days), and it is little wonder that the prophet par excellence of our time is no one other than Charlie Daniels, who had the temerity to put to music the words:
I ain’t asking nobody for nothing,
if I can’t git it on my own
If you don’t like the way I’m living,
you just leave this long-haired country boy alone
Amen, Charlie… hope your recovery is going well.
By J. Baxter
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
